How do you plan to deal with the potential traffic implications of a new development?
The City has published a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental) report that states that the number of trips per day to this location will decrease after the proposed development is constructed. You can view the reports and its conclusions here http://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=468&targetid=27
Additional Info:
The parking provided by this development is in compliance with the current precise plan requirements which mandate one parking space for each one bedroom apartment and two parking spaces for each two bedroom apartment. Fifteen percent of the total number of parking spaces will be designated for guest parking, per the precise plan requirements.
In addition to the 301 parking spaces proposed, we plan to provide 12 tandem parking spaces. Two of the required guest spaces will be dedicated to a car sharing service.
A recent study published in 2008 by the Transit Cooperative Research Program entitled “Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel” has the following among its conclusions:
“TOD commuters typically use transit two to five times more than other commuters in the region.”
“TOD households typically own fewer cars because they have smaller households and because they may forgo extra cars due to transit’s proximity. TOD households are almost twice as likely to not own any car and own almost half the number of cars of other households.”
“Successful ridership strategies include: TOD transit pass programs, parking reductions, and car-sharing programs.”
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf
Another report entitled “Are TOD’s Over parked” published by the University of California Transportation Center in 2009 concludes the following:
“Recent studies on car ownership levels and vehicle trip generation rates suggest that many large-scale housing projects near urban rail stations are “over-parked” – more parking is provided than is needed. This can drive up the cost of housing, consume valuable land near transit, and impose such environmental costs as increased impervious surface area.” . . .
“To study this issue, we surveyed 31 multi-family housing projects near suburban rail stations in the East Bay of San Francisco-Oakland and Metro Portland, Oregon. As the figure shows, TOD parking supply exceeded peak demand (midnight to 6AM) by 25 percent in the East Bay and 30 percent in Metro Portland. Peak demand, however, was not too different from ITE’s standard of 1.2 spaces/unit.”
http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/882.pdf
“The majority of TOD residents along new transit systems are childless singles or couples. The
age spectrum is wide: often younger working professionals or older empty-nesters. TOD residents
may have low, medium, or high incomes; this is driven by the design and price of the specific TOD
housing.”
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf
What specific changes are you requesting to the Evelyn Avenue Corridor Plan (EACPP)? Specifically why are you requesting more units than what is currently allowed?
Significant changes have occurred within the Mountain View community since the EACPP was created in 1994, roughly 16 years ago. With the recent passage of bills like SB375 and AB32 local and regional governments have become focused on more responsible planning in order to manage the growth of their Cities. Smart growth and responsible planning focuses on the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is a major contributor to pollution and consumption of natural resources. It also focuses on greening the built environment through systems and practices that conserve energy and water, enhance indoor air quality, promote recycling and the use of recycled materials. A major component of these new planning efforts is to allow higher density, pedestrian friendly, transit-oriented housing near major transit lines and essential services. This provides the opportunity for people to live less auto-centric and subsequently healthier more affordable lifestyles while promoting a cleaner environment for the entire community.
Changes to the existing Evelyn Avenue Corridor Plan (EACPP) will be needed in order to create a feasible development that achieves the highest and best use of the Minton’s Lumber property in accordance with the aforementioned smart growth initiatives. They are as follows:
1. The EACPP allows for two story construction along Villa Street, three story construction along Bush Street, and three stories everywhere else. Our proposal is consistent with the two and three story requirements at Villa and Bush respectively (our most sensitive residential adjacencies), and we are proposing to allow four stories on W. Evelyn Avenue directly across from the train station, as well as along the New Public Street, and the interior of the development.
2. The EACPP allows for a 10’ setback from property line (roughly back of sidewalk) on the New Public Street, Villa Street, and Bush Street, and we meet that requirement. Along W. Evelyn Avenue we have chosen to match the setback of the existing Minton’s Lane Development to the West which is slightly less than the 20’ setback from property line (roughly back of walk) that is required by the EACPP.
3. The EACPP sets a density level of 15 to 25 units per acre. We are proposing 61 units per acre. There are 313 homes that have either been constructed or are currently proposed, including the 455 West Evelyn proposal, for the entire 11 acre mixed unit area of the EACPP. That works out to just 29 units per acre, or roughly four more units than the original plan took into account when it examined parking, traffic, environmental and other planning related concerns 16 years ago. The City has hired experts to draft its own environmental study of our proposal which will analyze its potential effects on parking, traffic, noise, environment, etc. We eagerly await this data and will defer to the experts on any specific impacts that may result from our proposal.
View Overall Density
In the context of this discussion it is also important to remember that the inevitable future improvements in the existing transit system, including the possibility of a high speed rail stop at the Downtown Transit Station, will certainly foster continued strong economic growth and additional residential and commercial development within the downtown area of the City. Our goal is to work closely with the City, the neighbors, and the property owners to update the existing Evelyn Plan to meet the needs of tomorrow, while protecting the interests of the local community and the people who call Mountain View home.
A recent study published in June 2009 by the Mineta Transportation Institute provides some useful data to answer this question. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of that report.
“The development of successful TODs often encounters several barriers. These barriers include: a lack of inter-jurisdictional cooperation, auto-oriented design that favors park and ride lot over ridership generating uses, and community opposition. The community opposition may be more vocal in suburban areas where residents of predominately single-family neighborhoods may feel that the proposed high-density, mixed-use TOD will bring noise, air pollution, increased congestion and crime into their area. Community opposition has been instrumental in stopping many TOD projects in the San Francisco Bay Area.
While community opposition to TODs has been pronounced, very little empirical research exists that indicates whether this opposition is well-founded. Economic theory suggests that if a TOD has a negative effect on the surrounding residential neighborhoods, then that effect should lower land prices and in turn, the housing prices in these neighborhoods. Similarly, an increase in the housing prices would mean a positive effect of TODs on the surrounding neighborhoods. This study empirically estimates the impact of four San Francisco Bay Area sub-urban TODs on single-family home sale prices. The study finds that the case study suburban TODs either had no impact or had a positive impact on the surrounding single-family home sale prices.”
Click here for the full report